Madrid system

"Madrid Agreement" redirects here. For other uses, see Madrid Agreement (disambiguation).

For the Madrid Protocol relating to mining in the Antarctic, see Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. For great-power agreement over the Sulu Archipelago, see Madrid Protocol of 1885.

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)

This article needs to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (November 2010)

|

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Madrid system" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (September 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

|

(Learn how and when to remove this template message)

The Madrid system, or Madrid Protocol[1] (officially the Madrid system for the international registration of marks) is the primary international system for facilitating the registration of trademarks in multiple jurisdictions around the world. Its legal basis is the multilateral treaty Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks of 1891, as well as the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement (1989).

The Madrid system provides a centrally administered system of obtaining a bundle of trademark registrations in separate jurisdictions. Registration through the Madrid system does not create a unified registration, as in the case of the European Union trade mark[2] system; rather, it creates a bundle of national rights through an international registration able to be administered centrally. Madrid provides a mechanism for obtaining trademark protection in many countries around the world which is more effective than seeking protection separately in each individual country or jurisdiction of interest.

The Madrid Protocol system provides for the international registration of trade marks by way of one application that can cover more than one country. The opportunity of having a single registration to cover a wide range of countries gives advantages, both in terms of portfolio management and cost savings, as opposed to a portfolio of independent national registrations.

Madrid now permits the filing, registration and maintenance of trade mark rights in more than one jurisdiction, provided that the target jurisdiction is a party to the system. The Madrid system is administered by the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva, Switzerland. There are 125 countries part of the Madrid System.

## Contents

* 1 History and development
* 2 Members
* 3 Advantages
* 4 Disadvantages
* 5 Developments since 2000
* 6 See also
* 7 Notes
* 8 References
* 9 External links

## History and development[edit]

This section relies largely or entirely on a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources.
Find sources: "Madrid system" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (December 2016)

|

The Madrid system comprises two treaties; the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks,[fn 1] which was concluded in 1891, and entered into force in 1892, and the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement, which came into operation on 1 April 1996. The Madrid Agreement and Madrid Protocol were adopted at diplomatic conferences held in Madrid, Spain.

The Madrid Agreement was originally intended to provide for an international registration system, but did not achieve this for two significant reasons:

* The lack of international acceptance. Many non-member countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States, and Central American, South American and Asian countries, such as Japan, were not adherents, which undermined recognition of the system as a truly "international" regime. Significantly, many of these countries represent the largest numbers of trademark filings and registrations in the world; and
* The mere forwarding by the International Bureau of a uniform application to member countries, rather than the registration of the applicable trademark in the national trademark registers, precludes an actual "registration" system.

Some of the large trading nations like the United States, Japan, and Canada, which have a large number of filings at the national level, did not join the Madrid Agreement due to another perceived flaw in the system: if the home registration upon which an international registration was based came under 'central attack', the international registration would be cancelled or limited to the same extent that the home registration was cancelled or limited.

During 1966 and 1967, attempts were made to address this issue by establishing a new treaty that would reflect the need of the times rather than the world of the 1890s when the agreement was adopted. This led to the drafting of the Trademark Registration Treaty (TRT) which was adopted in Vienna in 1973, and entered into effect in 1980, with five contracting states, namely, Burkina Faso, Congo, Gabon, Soviet Union and Togo. In the absence of more accessions to the TRT and the low number of registrations since its inception, it was clear that the TRT was unlikely to supplant the Madrid Agreement.

As the realization of the introduction of a multi-jurisdictional (or at least pan-European) European Community Trade Mark (CTM) approached, the relevancy of the Madrid system came under scrutiny. Pressure increased on WIPO to maintain its relevance and strengthen the agreement by increasing membership, possibly through amendments. This culminated in the introduction of the Madrid Protocol, pursuant to which a CTM registration could be a 'foundation' or 'home' registration upon which an international registration could then be established. This mechanism is referred to as a "linking provision." The Protocol, after considerable lobbying efforts by WIPO, was signed by many countries, including most of the present members of the Madrid Agreement, and some countries that are members of the European Union, but were not members of the Madrid Agreement. The Protocol entered into force on December 1, 1995 and became operative on April 1, 1996.

Many countries have needed to modify or consider modifying their trademark laws in order to adhere to the Protocol, in addition to the modifications required by GATT-TRIPS/WTO.

In Europe, resistance to the Protocol was brought by trademark attorneys who were afraid of losing business because a Community Trade Mark application could be filed directly through the Madrid Protocol process.[3]

In the United States, the proposal bogged down due to a trademark dispute between two businesses who were heavy campaign contributors to certain Congressmen, followed by a repeated reshuffling of the Senate due to elections and a subsequent defection of a Republican senator.[3] The treaty was eventually ratified during the Presidency of George W. Bush.[4]

Japan revised its trademark law with the official acceptance of the Nice Classification (an international trademark classification system for products and services), as well as applications covering service using service marks. The members of the European Community have amended their laws to conform to the European Community Harmonization Directive. In recent years trademark laws in several other countries such as Malaysia, New Zealand and South Africa have also been amended to accommodate the changes.[citation needed]

## Members[edit]

Madrid Union members (green) and jurisdictions that are not members but are members of either OAPI or the EU (blue).

This section relies largely or entirely on a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources.
Find sources: "Madrid system" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (December 2016)

|

Adherence to the convention or the protocol includes membership of the "Madrid Union." As of June 2019[update], there are 104 members made out of 120 countries. The original treaty has 55 members, all of which are also party to the protocol (when Algeria joined the Madrid Protocol on October 31, 2015, all of the members of the Madrid Agreement were also members of the Madrid Protocol and many of the aspects of the Madrid Agreement ceased to have any practical effect). The term 'Madrid Union' can be used to describe those jurisdictions party to either the agreement or the protocol (or both).[5]

The protocol has been in operation since 1996 and has 100 members[6] making it more popular than the agreement, which has been in operation for more than 110 years and has 55 members.[5] The primary reason the protocol is more popular than the agreement is that the protocol introduced a number of changes to the Madrid system which significantly enhanced its usefulness to trademark owners.

For example, under the protocol it is possible to obtain an international registration based on a pending trademark application, so that a trademark owner can effectively apply for international registration concurrently, or immediately after, filing an application in a member jurisdiction. By comparison, the agreement requires that the trademark owner already holds an existing registration in a member jurisdiction, which may often take many months and sometimes years to obtain in the first place. In addition, the agreement does not provide the option to 'convert' international registrations which have been 'centrally attacked.'

Table of Madrid Union members with year of accession to the agreement and protocol, as applicable  Contracting party | Agreement | Protocol

|
|

Afghanistan |  | 2018
African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI) |  | 2015
Albania | 1995  | 2003
Algeria | 1972  | 2015
Antigua and Barbuda |  | 2000
Armenia | 1991  | 2000
Australia |  | 2001
Austria | 1909  | 1999
Azerbaijan | 1995  | 2007
Bahrain |  | 2005
Belarus | 1991  | 2002
Belgium[a] | 1892  | 1998
Bhutan | 2000  | 2000
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 1992  | 2009
Botswana |  | 2006
Brazil |  | 2019
Brunei Darussalam |  | 2017
Bulgaria | 1985  | 2001
Cabo Verde |  | 2022
Cambodia |  | 2015
Canada |  | 2019
Chile |  | 2022
China[b] | 1989  | 1995
Colombia |  | 2012
Croatia | 1991  | 2004
Cuba | 1989  | 1995
Cyprus | 2003  | 2003
Czech Republic | 1993  | 1996
North Korea | 1980  | 1996
Denmark[c] |  | 1996
Egypt | 1952  | 2009
Estonia |  | 1998
Eswatini | 1998  | 1998
European Union[d] |  | 2004
Finland |  | 1996
France | 1892  | 1997
The Gambia |  | 2015
Georgia |  | 1998
Germany | 1922  | 1996
Ghana |  | 2008
Greece |  | 2000
Hungary | 1909  | 1997
Iceland |  | 1997
India |  | 2013
Indonesia |  | 2018
Iran | 2003  | 2003
Ireland |  | 2001
Israel |  | 2010
Italy | 1894  | 2000
Jamaica |  | 2022
Japan |  | 2000
Kazakhstan | 1991  | 2010
Kenya | 1998  | 1998
Kyrgyzstan | 1991  | 2004
Lao People's Democratic Republic |  | 2016
Latvia | 1995  | 2000
Lesotho | 1999  | 1999
Liberia | 1995  | 2009
Liechtenstein | 1933  | 1998
Lithuania |  | 1997
Luxembourg[a] | 1924  | 1998
Madagascar |  | 2008
Malawi |  | 2018
Malaysia |  | 2019
Mexico |  | 2013
Monaco | 1956  | 1996
Mongolia | 1985  | 2001
Montenegro | 2006  | 2006
Morocco | 1917  | 1999
Mozambique | 1998  | 1998
Namibia | 2004  | 2004
Netherlands[a][e] | 1893  | 1998
New Zealand[f] |  | 2012
North Macedonia | 1991  | 2002
Norway |  | 1996
Oman |  | 2007
Philippines |  | 2012
Poland | 1991  | 1997
Portugal | 1893  | 1997
South Korea |  | 2003
Republic of Moldova | 1991  | 1997
Romania | 1920  | 1998
Russian Federation | 1976  | 1997
Rwanda |  | 2013
Samoa |  | 2019
San Marino | 1960  | 2007
Sao Tome and Principe |  | 2008
Serbia | 1992  | 1998
Sierra Leone | 1997  | 1999
Singapore |  | 2000
Slovakia | 1993  | 1997
Slovenia | 1991  | 1998
Spain | 1892  | 1995
Sudan | 1984  | 2010
Sweden |  | 1995
Switzerland | 1892  | 1997
Syrian Arab Republic |  | 2004
Tajikistan | 1991  | 2011
Thailand |  | 2017
Trinidad and Tobago |  | 2020
Tunisia |  | 2013
Turkey |  | 1999
Turkmenistan |  | 1999
Ukraine | 1991  | 2000
United Kingdom[g] |  | 1995
United States of America |  | 2003
Uzbekistan |  | 2006
Vietnam | 1949  | 2006
Zambia |  | 2001
Zimbabwe |  | 2015

1. ^ a b c Benelux is considered one country for Madrid-system purposes.
2. ^ Excluding Hong Kong and Macao.
3. ^ Including Greenland and the Faroe Islands.
4. ^ Malta is the only member state of the EU that is not also a member of the Madrid Union; an EUTM obtained via Madrid will cover Malta.
5. ^ Including Curaçao, the Caribbean Netherlands, and Sint Maarten, which have registries independent of the unified Benelux office; excluding Aruba.
6. ^ Excluding Tokelau.
7. ^ Including the Isle of Man and (from 1 January 2021) Guernsey and Gibraltar; excluding other Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories.

## Advantages[edit]

This section relies largely or entirely on a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources.
Find sources: "Madrid system" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (December 2016)

|

The Madrid system provides a mechanism whereby a trademark owner who has an existing trademark application or registration (known as the 'basic application' or 'basic registration') in a member jurisdiction may obtain an 'international registration' for their trademark from the WIPO. The trademark owner may then extend the protection afforded to the international registration to one or more member jurisdictions, a process known as 'designation'. A useful feature of the Madrid system is that this protection may generally be extended to additional jurisdictions at any time, such that international trade mark protection can be extended to new jurisdictions which subsequently join Madrid, or to such other jurisdictions as the trade mark owner may choose.

In basic terms, the primary advantage of the Madrid system is that it allows a trademark owner to obtain trademark protection in any or all member states by filing one application in one jurisdiction with one set of fees, and make any changes (e.g. changes of name or address) and renew registration across all applicable jurisdictions through a single administrative process and the payment of a single fee.[7]

## Disadvantages[edit]

This section relies largely or entirely on a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources.
Find sources: "Madrid system" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (December 2016)

|

One disadvantage of the Madrid system is that any refusal, withdrawal or cancellation of the basic application or basic registration within five years of the registration date of the international registration will lead to the refusal, withdrawal or cancellation of the international registration to the same extent. For example, if a basic application covers 'clothing, headgear and footwear,' and 'headgear' is then deleted from the basic application (for whatever reason), 'headgear' will also be deleted from the international application. Therefore, the protection afforded by the international registration in each designated member jurisdiction will extend only to 'clothing and footwear.' If the basic application is rejected as a whole, the international registration would also be totally refused.

The process of attacking the basic application or basic registration for this purpose is generally known as 'central attack.' Under the Madrid Protocol, the effects of a successful central attack can be mitigated by transforming the international registration into a series of applications in each jurisdiction designated by the international registration, a process known as 'transformation.' Although transformation is an expensive option of last resort, the resulting applications will receive the registration date of the international registration as their filing date.

In 1997, less than half of a percent of international registrations were canceled as a result of central attack.[8]

The cost savings which usually result from using the Madrid system may be negated by the requirement to use local agents in the applicable jurisdiction if any problems arise.

## Developments since 2000[edit]

This section relies largely or entirely on a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources.
Find sources: "Madrid system" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (December 2016)

|

Two significant recent developments in international trademark law were the accession of the United States and the European Union to the Madrid Protocol on November 2, 2003, and October 1, 2004, respectively. With the addition of these jurisdictions to the protocol, most major trading jurisdictions have joined the Madrid system.

On 31 July 2015, Algeria deposited its instrument of accession and will accede to the Madrid Protocol on 31 October 2015. As Algeria was the last member of the Madrid system to adhere to the protocol, the protocol is now effective across the entire Madrid system.[9]

## See also[edit]

* Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks
* International (Nice) Classification of Goods and Services
* World Intellectual Property Organization

## Notes[edit]

1. ^ The full name of the Madrid Agreement is the "Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks of April 14, 1891 (as revised at Brussels on December 14, 1900, at Washington on June 2, 1911, at The Hague on November 6, 1925, at London on June 2, 1934, at Nice on June 15, 1957, and at Stockholm on July 14, 1967, and as amended on September 28, 1979)".

## References[edit]

1. ^ "Madrid Protocol". uspto.gov. United States: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Retrieved 23 May 2021.
2. ^ Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (Official Journal No. L78, 24.3.2009, p.1)
3. ^ a b Report by the International Trademark Association, April 2003
4. ^ WIPO web site, List of Members of the Madrid System
5. ^ a b "Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Mark and Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks – Status" (PDF). WIPO. 15 January 2020.
6. ^ "Members of the Madrid Union". WIPO.
7. ^ "Registering international trademarks under the Madrid System (Updated)". ABG IP. 20 October 2021. Retrieved 20 October 2021.
8. ^ World Intellectual Property Organization
9. ^ Algeria Joins the Madrid Protocol, WIPO, 7 August 2015

## External links[edit]

* WIPO Madrid system homepage
* Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks in the WIPO Lex database — official website of WIPO.
* The full text of the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks (as amended on September 28, 1979) (in English).
* Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks in the WIPO Lex database — official website of WIPO.
* The full text of the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks (as amended on November 12, 2007) (in English).
* Brief Overview Of Madrid Protocol
* Overview of Madrid Protocol with list of member states as of July 2022
* International Trade Marks Association (INTA) Madrid Protocol homepage
* madridextension.com Site explaining the Madrid Extension of a Trademark Application

* v
* t
* e

Intellectual property laws in the European Union (EU)

Copyright|

| Directives|

* Computer Programs Directive (1991)
* Rental Directive (1992)
* Satellite and Cable Directive (1993)
* Copyright Duration Directive (1993)
* Database Directive (1996)
* Conditional Access Directive (1998)
* Electronic Commerce Directive 2000 (2000)
* Information Society Directive (2001)
* Resale Rights Directive (2001)
* Directive on the re-use of public sector information (2003)
* Enforcement Directive (2004)
* Copyright Term Directive (2006)
* Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (2019)
* Customs Regulation 1383/2003 (2003)

|

National laws|

* France
* Germany
* Ireland
* Italy
* Netherlands
* Poland
* Romania
* Spain
* Sweden
* United Kingdom

Trade mark|

* Ireland
* United Kingdom
* European Union trade mark
* Trade Marks Directive (1988)
* Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. v. Cadbury UK Limited

Patent|

* Germany
* The Netherlands
* Romania
* Directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (1998)
* European patent law
* Unified Patent Court
* Unitary patent

Designs|

* Hague Agreement (1999)
* Directive on the legal protection of designs (1998)
* Regulation on Community designs (2001)
* Community design

Geographical indications|

* Protected designation of origin

Trade secrets|

* Directive on the Protection of Trade Secrets (2016)
* German Law on the Protection of Trade Secrets (2019)

Treaties|

* Berne Convention
* Lisbon Agreement
* Madrid system
* Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property
* Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations
* TRIPS Agreement
* WIPO Copyright Treaty
* WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty

* v
* t
* e

Trademark law

Concepts|

* Distinctiveness
* Dilution
* Generic trademark
* Passing off
* Concurrent use
* Priority right
* Coexistence agreement
* Confusing similarity
* Functionality doctrine
* Initial Interest Confusion
* Good faith doctrine
* Fair use
* Secondary liability
* Nominative use
* Disparagement
* Reputation parasitism
* Cybersquatting
* Parallel import
* Well-known trademark

Treaties|

* Paris Convention
* Madrid Agreement
* Madrid Protocol
* TRIPS
* Singapore Treaty
* Community Trade Mark
* Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy

Country|

* Australia
* Canada
* China
* European Union
* Hong Kong
* India
* Ireland
* Japan
* Oman
* Philippines
* United Kingdom
* United States

Types|

| Standard|

* Registered trademark
* Service mark
* Trade dress
* Unregistered trademark
* Wordmark

|

Non-standard|

* Certification marks
* Chartered marks
* Collective trademarks
* Defensive trademarks
* Electronic registration marks
* Font trademark
* Ghost marks
* Geographical indication
* Protected designation of origin

Non-conventional|

* Colour trademarks
* Hologram trademarks
* Motion trademarks
* Scent trademarks
* Shape trademarks
* Sound trademarks

Related|

* Brand
* Emblem
* Logo

Bodies|

* WIPO
* International Trademark Association
* EUIPO
* USPTO
* ICANN
* Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt
* CIPO

Symbols|

* Registered trademark symbol
* Service mark symbol
* Unregistered trademark symbol

Related|

* Trademark attorney
* Trademark examiner
* Trademark infringement
* Trademark share
* Trademark troll
* World Trademark Review

* Category:Trademark law
* Case laws
* WP:MOS/Trademarks

Authority control

General|

* VIAF
* 1
* WorldCat (via VIAF)

National libraries|

* Germany
* Czech Republic

*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template